Hunt v. Reyes et al

Filing 113

ORDER denying 111 Motion for relief signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/31/13. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL A. HUNT,

12

No. 2:08-cv-0181 MCE CKD P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

M. REYES, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff has filed a motion to file additional discovery requests. (ECF No. 111.)

19

Discovery in this action has long been closed. (ECF No. 48.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

20

Procedure 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's

21

consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily considers the diligence

22

of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609

23

(9th Cir. 1992). The district court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be

24

met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. Here, the court does not find

25

good cause to reopen discovery as plaintiff requests.

26

////

27

////

28
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s motion for relief (ECF No.

2

111) is denied.

3

Dated: October 31, 2013

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4
5
6
7
8

2 / hunt.0181.modify

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2